Top Ten Conspiracy Misquotes #4: ALBERT PIKE AND THE THREE WORLD WARSDebunking Albert Pike's WWIII vision(...)Only a vision by Pike could seem to explain how he could predict the name and horrors of Nazism and Communism orZionism illuminati 50
years before its existence if the letter was indeed written in 1871.
But when Conspiracy Archive went to find the alleged Pike letter to
Mazzini, text versions of which have been circulating the internet for
years, they found it never really existed. It was a story totally fabricated after the first two world wars by a guy name William Guy Carr based on writings of anti-Catholic writer Leo Taxil.
It is Carr who makes the grand leap to “3 World Wars” and attributes it
to Pike in a letter claimed to be in the archives of the British Museum
(to give the air of authenticity). The letter, if it ever existed, was
a modern fraud. The entire analysis, for those interested, is found in the following link:http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Pike-Mazzini_Three-World-Wars.htmConspiracy Archive’s analysis concludes with:

Exactly what William Guy Carr was trying to pull, I’ll never know. If you’ve bared it [the length of the above link] until the end, perhaps you’re disappointed to have found nothing about a prediction of three world wars,
Communism, Nazism and Zionist Illuminati – or anything of the sort. A
search through the entire book, utilizing relevant word combinations,
turns up nothing either. Instead, what it truly represents is the
scurrilous fantasies, and militant anti-Catholicism of its author: the
impostor Leo Taxil aka Dr. Bataille,
who profited handsomely while having a million laughs at the expense of
both Christians and Masons; who confessed that his entire corpus of
anti-Masonic works – spanning twelve years and representing thousands of
pages (including the translated excerpt above) – were a complete and
utter fraud; a colossal yet ridiculously farcical hoax.

aangirfan: WILLIAM CARR - PAWNS IN THE GAME
But let us explain about William James Guy Carr (1895 - 1959), who was born in England and went to sea at the age of 14. During World War II, Carr was working for the Canadian Intelligence Service.
He became a conspiracy theorist and wrote books which included 'Pawns
in the Game'. He believed that an age-old banking conspiracy was
seeking to bring about a one world government. Leo Taxil. Carr's
works were influenced by the writings of the British fascist Nesta
Webster and the Frenchman Léo Taxil. (...) Of course, Taxil may have
been part of a clever plot to discredit those who try to discredit
Freemasons.(...)The letter can apparently be traced to the earlier
writings of 'the self-confessed hoaxsters' Domenico Margiotta and Leo
Taxil. Apparently, there is no evidence that any correspondence ever
existed.Carr's books refer to the "Synagogue of Satan." Carr wrote, "I wish to make it clearly and emphatically known that I do not believe the Synagogue of Satan (S.O.S.) is Jewish,
but, as Christ told us for a definite purpose, it is comprised of 'I
know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are
the synagogue of Satan.' (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9)".[23] Carr believed that
the Luciferian conspirators existed at the time of Christ. So, Carr was some kind of right-winger with links to the security services. And some of his sources are dubious.One suspects that he was secretly a friend of the Feudal System?

This article first appeared in New View magazine Issue 73 Oct. – Dec. 2014

(...)

A Confession of FaithDuring
this period, however, the elites of the West had access to a form of
occult knowledge that they did not share with anyone outside their
occult brotherhoods. This too was a decadent form of the restriction of
knowledge to particular communities that stemmed from the mystery
centres of the Greco-Roman epoch and ultimately from the even earlier
Eypto-Chaldean epoch. During the age of Gabriel (1510-1879), which was
when freemasonry strongly developed in the English-speaking world and
was propagated outwards from there, someone in a lower social order
could gain access to this ‘secret knowledge’ only by becoming a member
of the brotherhood. A young man aged 21 to 24 joining such a brotherhood
and coming under the influence of older men of high status might become
imprinted with ideals that would guide the rest of his life. Just such a
young man was Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), the Victorian
mining magnate and ultra-imperialist, and an example of a significant
historical symptom here is the Confession of Faith that he wrote in
1877.

It
was a statement of his guiding principles, which he more or less
maintained for the rest of his life. Rhodes became a Master Mason in the
freemasonic Apollo University Lodge No.357 on 17 April 1877 while at
Oxford University (he studied Latin and ancient history) and went on to
become a member of the Prince Rose Croix Lodge No.30 in the High Grade
Scottish Rite system of freemasonry. Other members of the Apollo Lodge
in the late 19th century were the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII 1901-1910) and the Prince’s godson, Edward Grey,
the man who led the British Empire into the world war in 1914 as
Foreign Secretary. In 1891 Rhodes and the radical editor and occultist William Thomas Stead,
set up a secret society dedicated to world domination by the
English-speaking peoples. One needs then to look at the individuals who
worked most closely with Rhodes and Stead to realise their aim, for, as
Steiner indicated in the lectures mentioned earlier (KoU), in British
public life, the placing of individual personalities is especially
important i.e. who knows who? Important, then, are the connections
between these individuals and what those connections facilitated. (6)
Let us look at some of the ideas in the Confession that were constantly
to guide Rhodes throughout his life:

“I
contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of
the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race… the
absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply
means the end of all wars…I look into history and read the story of the
Jesuits. I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say
under bad leaders. In the present day I became member of the Masonic
Order. I see the wealth and power they possess, the influence they
hold…Why should we not form a secret society with but one object – the
furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole
uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United
States, for the making of the Anglo-saxon race but one empire…We learn
from the past how to frame our future…What has been one of the causes of
the success of the Romish Church? Let us form the same kind of society
which should have its member in every part of the British Empire working
with one object, and one idea, who should its members placed at our
universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing
through their hands [...] The Society should inspire and even own
portions of the press, for the press rules the mind of other people.”

We
see here the eye to Rome and the Jesuits (even though they were the
sworn enemies of the freemasons), the aim to rule the entire world by a
single people, the ‘Church of Anglo-saxonism’ as it were, the aim to
merge with the United States and all the English-speaking countries, the
aim to control education and the minds of the young, and to control and
influence the Press in the direction of Rhodes’ ideal. Now most
mainstream Anglo-American historians tend to belittle Rhodes’ Confession
of Faith as the overheated-fantasy of an extravagant young man. (7) But
this ‘fantasy’ has since 1877 largely become reality! All the aims set
out above have more or less been accomplished. The world has been
dominated by the Anglo-American world-view since 1945 and arguably,
since 1917, when America entered the war to save France and Britain, the
latter already bankrupt, never to regain its position as the world’s
creditor. Anglo-American think tanks were set up in the wake of the
First World War to coordinate Anglo-American foreign policy, and such
coordination has largely been the case since the 1930s after British and
American oil companies agreed on a division of Middle East oil reserves
in 1928.(8) Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge), Harvard and Yale have
become the four most prestigious universities in the world. Most of the
mainstream media, press and publishing tend to support the main lines of
Anglo-American foreign policy, from the UN to global warming; they
collude in the suppression of the truth about the assassination of
President Kennedy and the truth about the events of 9/11, and currently,
in the paranoia about Putin and Islamic State, and the all too
obviously faked videos of the “beheadings” of the American journalists
James Foley, Steven Sotloff and the Briton David Cawthorne Haines, in
all of the videos of which there was not a single drop of blood seen in
the actual act of ‘beheading’ (!) as the camera faded to black before
any blood was seen – strange behaviour for a group that is said to revel
in the killing of infidels and which is supposed to seek to intimidate
its enemies through gratuitous violence. The three victims themselves
were utterly passive throughout, hardly believable unless they had all
reached some stage of enlightenment during their captivity or else were
on some kind of drug, which seems not to be the case. No actual
beheadings took place in the videos; there has only been the repeated
assertion that they did. Articles in The Daily Telegraph, and The Times
have both acknowledged that the James Foley beheading was probably
faked (9) but such acknowledgment is ignored by the rest of the
mainstream media and even by those two newspapers themselves! may
indeed have been killed at some point (though they may equally well be
still in captivity somewhere) either by shooting or even by beheading,
but they were almost certainly not killed in those videos, but it was
those ‘shock and awe’ videos which have been used by the media and the
governments of the West to justify their current policies, including a
return to war by America and Britain in the Middle East.

Since the revelations of the American whistleblower, former National Security Agency worker Edward Snowden
last year about the extent of US spying worldwide, many are now
familiar with the notion of the “Five Eyes”, the global surveillance
system operated exclusively by the five English-speaking countries (US,
UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), who spy on everyone else, including
NATO allies and who share intelligence only amongst themselves, as
Angela Merkel has, very publicly, recently been made aware – if she did
not already know it. Despite all the talk in the Anglo-American media
about “the end of the nation state” and “the age of the borderless
world, “the cosmopolitan multicultural era” etc., as far as the elite of
the English-speaking world are concerned, clearly, only people who are
citizens of English-speaking countries and who subscribe to the values
of the English-speaking elite are to be trusted.

We
can see in Rhodes’ Confession and in his biography that transition
referred to earlier from the age of nationalism to the age of
internationalism, which was in fact the transition between the offices
or wills of the two spiritual beings – Gabriel and Michael. The late
Victorian creed of Imperialism was a reflection of the confluence or
overlap of these two spiritual impulses – one focused on a particular
element of the natural, earthly world, and the other devoted to a warped
ideal of ‘peace and service’, global in scope. Rhodes was no
old-fashioned nationalist or imperialist. It was not the monarchy or the
aristocracy, the Church of England, or even the physical land of
England that was important to him; it was ‘Englishness’ itself as an
ideal, an ideology even, a faux religion for a man who had all but lost
his religious faith. Rhodes was driven by his ideal that was global in
scope, pan-human in fact but at the same time narrow and egoistic in
that it really served and was rooted in only one human community – that
of the English-speaking people. It was not actually universal in spirit
at all. The words ‘narrow’ and egoistic’ are not meant pejoratively
here, but descriptively. One is concerned here to understand this
phenomenon of Rhodes and his Confession, not to judge. He really felt
that mankind could only be at peace if it was governed by Englishmen,
English-speaking people with ‘English’ values, and this literally
‘eugenic’ feeling was shared by countless other English-speaking people.
One could imagine a Roman senator thinking something similar 1900 years
ago – that only a world governed from Rome can be a peaceful, stable,
civilised world.

These
days we so often hear glib statements in the media about “the
international community”, when what is all too obviously meant is the US
and the UK and their allies. In the endless policy papers produced by
transatlantic think tanks, this same sentiment is apparent – that only a
world guided by “American leadership” can be peaceful, stable,
civilised, democratic. Despite all the talk about multiculturalism and
the international atmosphere of our globalised world, when we read a
magazine like New Scientist, we should note that only a few of
the scientists referred to and the institutions they work at are not
Anglo-American. When we watch or listen to a media organisation like the
BBC, we should try to be aware that some of its key presenters are
alumni of the British-American Project, a shadowy organisation (that
stays well out of the media limelight) founded in 1985 by Sir Charles Hyde Villiers
in order to coordinate opinion in the modern ‘transatlantic’ space,
very much in the sense that Rhodes intended (The Society should inspire
and even own portions of the press, for the press rules the mind of
other people”), which is why he created his Rhodes Scholarship Trust, to
expose promising young Americans to the chauvinist imperial thoughts
they could imbibe at Oxford and then put into practice during their
careers.

Plans for RussiaCecil
Rhodes once said that he would annexe the stars if he could and some
American dreams are not dissimilar, as Star Trek, Star Wars and many
other such Hollywood films have shown us. How does the elite ruling this
modern global Rhodes-ian state – which, like Rhodes himself, has a
gargantuan appetite and will – plan to act in the Middle East? In an
article in New View in 2011 (10) I drew attention to the two kinds of
revolutions that might well be about to emerge in the Middle East in a
kind of parallel to what happened in Russia in the year 1917 – the first
an apparently pro-western, supposedly more liberal uprising within the
countries of the region against the older authoritarian regimes that
ruled them, and then a fanatical pan-Islamist movement for a restored
Islamic Caliphate would emerge that would seek to rule the entire
Islamic world in a single state. I wrote three years ago in New View: “If
we see little that is constructive resulting from the new regimes that
replace the Middle eastern autocracies, then we should not be surprised
to find the Muslim vacuum being filled with something far more
radical…something calling for a Caliphate that would claim to restore to
Muslims, and especially young Muslims, their ‘dignity’ vis-a-vis the
West. And this something would inevitably be smeared and feared in the
western Press as a great threat, but it may actually be welcomed in the
hidden circles of western power as the new, and useful, counterpart at
‘the grand chessboard’” (11). Almost exactly on schedule this
“something far more radical” appeared in the shape of the movement that
calls itself Islamic State, a fanatical, pan-Islamic, Caliphatic
movement has appeared. I say “on schedule” because its emergence, as I
described in that article in 2011, was imagined for the year 2011 in one
of the key transatlantic media organs that has been enthusiastically
serving “the hidden circles of western power” since the 1930s, namely, The Economist of London. As long ago as Dec.1992 The Economist
published an article (12) that was itself a very striking exposition of
the intentions of those forces that intended to bring about a global
conflict in the first half of the 21st century. The pan-Islamic
movement, it forecast, would eventually link up with China and the
ultimate result of this alliance’s aggression would be, not the
destruction of the West nor of Israel, but the destruction of Russia!
Western Asia (the Islamic world) would join up with Eastern Asia to take
over (Russian) Central Asia (Siberia and the lands east of the Urals).
This looks unlikely, some might say, because Russia and China are so
connected and mutually supportive these days, having signed a gigantic
Eurasian “Power of Siberia” gas pipeline 30-year deal in May this year
worth US$400 billion (£237 billion) to supply China with Russian gas,
and with the two countries working together towards creating an
alternative financial architecture to the US-dominated petrodollar: “Beijing
has recently struck numerous agreements with major trading partners
such as Brazil that bypass the dollar. Moscow and Beijing have also set
up rouble-yuan swap facilities that push the greenback out of the
picture. If Russia and China now decide to drop dollar energy pricing
totally, America’s reserve currency status could unravel fast, seriously
undermining the US Treasury market and causing a world of pain for the
West.” (13)

But
just as it was a key western strategy from the late 1880s onwards, very
successfully executed over the following 60 years, to ensure that
Russia and Germany stayed apart and did not collaborate, so it is very
likely that we shall see the West searching for ways to drive Russia and
China apart. Revolution, Islamic revival or war against Germany were
envisaged by Britain’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Lord Salisbury
in 1885 (14) as three ways of solving Britain’s “Russia problem”. Two
of those tactics were later employed on a gigantic scale. The third has
been in train since the late 1970s when Zbigniew Brzezinski
advised Jimmy Carter to fund and arm the Afghan mujahideen so as to
give the Soviets [Russians] their own Vietnam. This became one of the
main tools to undermine the USSR in the 1980s. Russia was then
confronted by Islamic radicalism in Chechnya, the Balkans (Kosovo) was
then used as a weapon against Russia. Then the Muslim card was played
against Russia in the conflict in Chechnya in the late 1990s,
culminating in the Beslan school massacre in 2004; Russia was not
pleased when President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia was overthrown in
2000 following a NATO bombing campaign against Serbia, and Kosovo was
split off from Serbia by the West and has since been host to the largest
US military base in Europe, Camp Bondsteel. Continuous economic,
diplomatic, covert military and cyberwarfare pressure from the West was
put on Russia’s ally Iran and then after 2011, came the attack via
numerous proxy armed gangs, many of them Islamist, funded and armed by
the West’s friends in the region (Qatar, Saudi Arabia) on Russia’s
Syrian ally President Bashar al-Assad, in the so-called ‘civil war’
which is still ongoing and destroying that country. In May 2013 US
Senator John McCain entered Syria illegally from Turkey to meet with and
encourage leaders of the Syrian armed opposition groups that have been
creating the mayhem in Syria over the past three years. After all, what
state in the world, democratic or authoritarian, tolerates violence
against the state by armed gangs and does not try to put it down by
force? Finally, the West professed to be horrified by the sudden
emergence this year of Islamic State and its ultra-violence, yet another
‘shock and awe’ tactic that could be used by the western elite to gain
the support of its populace and politicians for western military action
in the region. The lack of official US and UK criticism of Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf States (all loyal customers for western arms manufacturers)
for arming and funding Islamic State has been deafening. Meanwhile, we
see Islamic State-like groups emerging across the Islamic world, from
Nigeria to Indonesia. Afghan Taliban groups talk about joining up with
Islamic State, all of this focused on the idea of the cosmopolitan
borderless Caliphate. The faked beheading videos have been used to front
up a pretext for Obama to attack Islamic State in Syria as well as
Iraq, thus enabling him to do what he (or those behind him) wanted to do
last summer – carry out airstrikes on Syria – but was prevented from
doing by the vote of the British parliamentarians, who for once showed
some ethical backbone in foreign affairs.

The
West is thus fully ensconced in the Balkans, in the Caucasus (Georgia,
Azerbaijan) and in Afghanistan(15); we can see that almost all the
former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe are now in NATO, as well
as the Baltic states, two of which border directly on Russia. NATO is
trying to draw Sweden and Finland into its tent. And then, to top it
all, in November 2013 the West sought to entice Ukraine into its orbit
and succeeded in doing so by means of a sordid illegal coup in February
2014 after the whole world had been treated to the sight of – once
again – Sen. John McCain fraternising in Kiev with the
Ukrainian Far Right Svoboda Party and to the sound of Victoria Nuland,
Assistant Sec. of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (16) of the
State Department caught on tape trying to organise which Ukrainian
politicians would be levered into the desired pro-US Ukrainian
government which was planned to replace the regime of President
Yanukovych. $5 billion had been spent since 1991 by the US on ‘promoting
democracy’ in Ukraine since its independence 23 years ago, she said at
the National Press Club in Washington DC on 13 December 2013. The
illegal coup in Feb 2014 year turned out to be Putin’s red line. He made
his move and seized Crimea (with its key naval base at Sevastopol) back
from Ukraine on the pretext of a popular referendum(17). The West then
used this seizure as the excuse to recommence the Cold War. The
English-speaking world’s opposition to Russia began in earnest in the
Crimean War (1853-56). At that time Britain was the dominant, unipolar
world power. In the 20th century Britain ceded that place to the USA. In
May 2014 President Vladimir Putin declared that: “The unipolar model of the world is over. The global picture has completely changed”.
The western media dutifully began to churn out daily propaganda against
Putin, who has now become the West’s new bogeyman, while sanctions are
ratcheted up against his country. All the western media talk is of
“isolating Russia”, (in effect, a kind of ‘excommunication’) pushing
Russia away from Europe, towards Asia. Having done that, the goal will
most likely be to undermine and ultimately destroy Russia’s relationship
with China so that a thoroughly “isolated” Russia can then be turned
upon by its Asiatic and Muslim neighbours; the Russian rump will then be
drawn into “the West”. The broad lines of this grand strategy were all
there in The Economist in 1992, 22 years ago and in Zbigniew
Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard in 1997 which stipulated that
Russia had only one possible future ahead of it – belonging to “the
West”; all others, he said, would lead to its downfall.

The Middle East & “Core Interests”In the
heyday of the Roman Empire, Rome fought Persia for domination of the
Middle East and ultimately of the Mediterranean. Today, we see the
American foreign policy elite, the would-be New Roman senators,
confessing an updated version of the faith of Rhodes (unipolar global
domination or “full spectrum dominance”, as they call it’) and aiming
ultimately to remove from Russia’s control the vast territories east of
the Urals with all their huge resources. In the two situations referred
to above – the Ukraine crisis and ‘Islamic State’ – we should note that
Russia is involved in both of these, directly and indirectly. Russia is
an ally of Syria and has been supporting the Syrian government’s
struggle against the various forces that would overthrow it, one of
which is ‘Islamic State’ (IS). Russia has had an important naval base in
Syria, at Tartus since 1971, its only naval base in a foreign country.
As a ‘Sunni Muslim’ organisation, IS is opposed to Iran, which is allied
to Russia, and Iran has been a strong supporter of Syria. (18)An
article and map in the US Armed Forces Journal in 2006 by Lt.Col. Ralph
Peters (ret.) called for the restructuring of the Islamic world from
Egypt to Pakistan.(19)

As
Syria and Iran are both supported by Russia, we could conclude that in
seeking to undermine them, this restructuring is therefore also intended
to undermine Russia’s strategic position in the region in order to a)
safeguard the US’ ally Israel, b) secure oil supplies in the region,
mostly in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, c) protect its mostly Sunni Muslim
client states in the region, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, from any
possible threat from Shia Muslim Iran and d) win a victory over Russia
in the ongoing geopolitical chess game in the Middle East and South
Asia. We could note furthermore, that those forces in the USA that were
calling for joint US-UK air attacks on Syria in August 2013 (e.g.
Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and their allies) following alleged
(but never proven) use of chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government
forces (another ‘shock and awe’ tactic), and who were frustrated by the
vote against such action in the British Parliament, are now saying that
to defeat I.S. comprehensively, the US and the UK have to launch air
strikes in Syria and that (according to UK Prime Minister David Cameron,
a strong supporter of last year’s failed air strikes) this is
acceptable and legitimate because, they claim, President Assad is a
war criminal, not least because of those (unproven) chemical attacks. We
could therefore conclude that IS has become a convenient excuse for
launching attacks on Syria, ostensibly to attack IS in Syria but also to
attack President Assad’s forces if they “get in the way”, because his
forces too are held to be illegitimate. In other words, for the US and
UK, Syria has become de facto, a chaos without a legitimate government,
just like Libya since 2011 and like Somalia, and the semi-chaos in South
Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq. This has been the result of US-UK
interventions and actions in these regions. On the whole, human beings
tend to prefer order, even a stifling order, to chaos and constant
insecurity and anxiety. Western actions in the Middle East, however,
have removed those forces of order (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Mubarak,
Gadaffi) which were holding chaos at bay and they have done so in the
name of “freedom, democracy, human rights” etc. But the result has been
chaos and the emergence of an apparently far worse force, that of IS;
the process has been similar to Russia in 1917: the externally prompted
removal of a previous order, the fall into violence and near anarchy and
the subsequent emergence of a far worse and more brutal ‘new order’ .
Whose interests are served by the removal of order and its substitution
by chaos? Clearly, not those of the people of the region.

Western
governments, which always condemn political violence at home,
encouraged and supported political violence and armed uprising against
Mubarak, Gadaffi, and Assad, and looked the other way while sources in
its Sunni Arab client states, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, all
strongly opposed to Shi’ite Islam, funded and armed the uprising in
Syria.(20) If that had not happened and Assad’s state had not thereby
been weakened, IS would not have been able to gain a foothold in Syria.
We have been told repeatedly that IS has become powerful in Iraq because
it is so ‘modern’, because of its technological savvy in its use of the
Internet for communications and propaganda, its bank robberies in Mosul
and seizures of Iraqi Army equipment including heavy weaponry, tanks
and even helicopters. But this is to ignore the support given to IS
since its inception by America’s Arab client states. Indeed, there are
grounds for believing that the founder of IS himself, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, under a pseudonym, was present at that intimate meeting
with Senator John McCain and others in 2013! (21). McCain claimed not to
know. His organisation, International Republican Institute (founded
1983), channels funds to groups in foreign countries around the world
that it wishes to back in taking power from governments in those
countries.

In
whose interests is the West creating lasting chaos in the Middle East?
Certainly not the interests of American business, not even the major
arms manufacturers, because they do their most profitable business with
compliant and stable US client states like Saudi Arabia and the UK. In
an earlier article in New View I pointed out that it is very much in
Israel’s security interest – as perceived by some in the Israeli elite –
that potentially hostile Muslim states in the region fall into chaos
and I indicated the Israeli Oded Yinon Plan of 1982, published by the
World Zionist organisation, which envisaged a strategy of deliberate
fragmentation of the Arab world “into a mosaic of ethnic and
confessional groupings that could be more easily manipulated”. But this
understandable though reprehensible Israeli plan to ensure Israel’s
security in its own small region of the world by creating chaos among
those of its neighbours which it perceives to be hostile does not
suffice to explain what has been happening in the Middle East since 2011
or its connection to the West’s worsening relations with Russia since
that year. For just as the small wars of 1911-1913 in North Africa and
the Balkans led on inexorably to the ‘global event’ of 1914, so the
upheavals in N.Africa and the Middle East since 2011 have led on to a
confrontation between the West and Russia in 2014, and now this is
repeatedly being called in the western media, almost with approbation, a
‘new Cold War’ and even the possibility of military conflict between
NATO and Russia, which inevitably raises the truly horrendous prospect
of a possible nuclear exchange, something we imagined we had left far
behind decades ago. Russia’s opposition to the West’s destabilising
actions in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria and in Ukraine has led to
hyperventilating western media lining Vladimir Putin up with Philip II,
Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. Putin may not exactly be
Nelson Mandela, but he certainly does not deserve to be placed with
those five English hate figures. He sees Russia as defending itself from
unjustified encroachments by NATO and the EU that the West said in 1991
would not happen, but did – facts detailed by John J. Mearsheimer even
in the inhouse magazine of the leading American thinktank the Council
on Foreign Affairs (Sept 2014) in an article titled: “Why the Ukraine is the West’s Fault”.
President Obama said on 10 September that the United States “will not
hesitate to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core
interests”. That was how Putin regarded the actions of those he saw as
the illegal coup leaders in Kiev; he saw them as threatening Russia’s
core interests. He moved against them by taking Crimea and supporting
the separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and in doing so, moved against the
EU, NATO and the USA.

In Dec. 1916, Lord Milner,
arguably the most powerful man in Britain in those years, brought about
a very quiet, very British coup, which instated a new, 5-man War
Cabinet headed by a frontman, David Lloyd George, as Prime Minister.
This Cabinet rejected out of hand German and American peace initiatives
made that winter and pressed on with the war. The favourite of the
Czarina of Russia, the monk Rasputin, had always opposed the war, so he
was murdered in a plot organised by British secret service on 30
December 1916, as peace hung in the balance. Soon afterwards, Milner
went to Russia as head of a mission to keep Russia in the war. In 1917
it was Milner and his associates who were responsible for devising and
drafting the Balfour Declaration which promised Palestine as a national
homeland to the Jewish people. The foreign secretary Arthur Balfour
simply signed it, hence the name by which the document is known. In
1919, as Colonial Secretary in the Cabinet, Milner wrote to Lloyd
George, saying:

The
independence of Arabia has always been a fundamental principle of our
eastern policy, but what we mean by it is that Arabia, while being
independent herself should be kept out of the sphere of European
political intrigue and within the British sphere of influence; in other
words, that her independent native rulers should have no foreign
treaties except with us. (22)

Since
the First World War Britain and America been seeking to remake the
Middle East as they see fit in order to undermine Russia and no other
powers, such as Germany in 1914 or Russia in 2014, are to be allowed to
challenge “the core interests” of the new Romans in the Middle East. It
remains to be seen whether Vladimir Putin’s words of May 2014 will be
borne out: “The unipolar model of the world is over. The global picture
has completely changed”.

NOTES(1) R.Steiner, Occult Science – An Outline(2) 6.9.2014 (3)
According to Rudolf Steiner, there are seven such ‘offices’ of seven
different time spirits; they recur cyclically, each lasting for about
350-450 years each: Oriphiel, Anael, Zachariel, Raphael, Samael,
Gabriel, Michael.(4) Also known as I.S.I.L. (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), or I.S.I.S. (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria)(5)
Here is a paradox, because it was said earlier that the Gabrielic
influence (16th – early 20th centuries) is focused on incarnation into
the material, that is, the birth pole of life, whereas the Michaelic
influence is focused on excarnation, the death pole, and indeed this is
why traditionally the archangel Gabriel is shown as the archangel of the
Annunciation to Mary while Michael is shown at the gate of heaven
weighing the souls of the dead. But birth out of the spirit onto the
material plane is actually spiritual death as one enters the realm of
death and decay, which is earthly existence, whereas physical death
means return to the realm of the non-dying, the spirit. (6)
Rhodes and Stead were assisted above all by Reginald Brett, Lord Esher,
the third man who founded the society in 1891 and the closest adviser to
the Prince and King. Esher, married to the daughter of the man who,
together with British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, founded the
Kingdom of Belgium in the 1830s, was the behind-the-scenes fixer of
Edwardian England and played a key role in the preparations for
Britain’s entry into the First World War.(7) For
example: “This remarkable and preposterous document did not become
public until after his death. Surely the reaction would have been
bewildered laughter.” http://1870to1918.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cecil-rhodes-and-british-expansionism/(8) The ”Red Line’, or Achnacarry agreement. See F.William Engdahl, A Century of War – Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, p.87.(9) “A
2010 Washington Post article authored by former Army Intelligence
Officer Jeff Stein features a detailed account of how the CIA admittedly
filmed a fake Bin Laden video during the run up to the 2003 Iraq war”. http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-beheadings-of-journalists-cia-admitted-to-staging-fake-jihadist-videos-in-2010/5399345http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/bill-gardner/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html ; http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4186089.ece(10) Issue 59 April-June 2011(11) Z. Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)(12) Looking Back from 2992: A World History Chapter 13 The Disastrous 21st Century(13) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/10854595/Russia-China-gas-deal-could-ignite-a-shift-in-global-trading.html(14) John Charmley, Splendid Isolation (1999) p.213(15) 9 US bases and 15,000 NATO troops are to remain in Afghanistan after most US forces leave in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Afghanistan#2013-11-20_Agreement_on_Bilateral_Security_Agreement_draft(16) She is married to the NeoCon Robert Kagan, co-founder of the now defunct Project for the New American Century.(17) The USSR transferred Crimea from being an autonomous republic to Ukraine in 1954.(18) We
could well imagine that the USA is seeking to support Israel, its ally
in the region, by undermining and even eventually overthrowing the
governments of Syria and Iran as planned in A Clean Break – A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,
a document prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in
1996 by the US NeoCons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. It advocated a
new pre-emptive policy: the removal of Saddam Hussein, the containment
of Syria through a strategy of proxy warfare and a focus on the two
countries’ alleged “weapons of mass destruction”. Israeli did not
officially adopt the policy but the USA has de facto effected it since
2001.(19) http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/peters-blood-borders-map/ (20)
The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades
Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations
in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh
intolerance of its Wahhabism. Head of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Bandar
bin Sultan was responsible for the details of arming the Syrian rebels: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/too-late-the-sponsors-of-ideology-find-they-have-made-a-monster-9687723.htmlUS
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable
released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial
support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in
Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html(21) http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html(22) Milner to Lloyd George, 16 May 1919; David Lloyd George: The Truth about the Peace Treaties. 2 vols. London 1938, vol. II, p. 900. (my thanks to Markus Osterrieder for this indication)

JPOST - Political correctness and Islam
Simply put: If Islam is a religion of peace, then why are so many of
its followers in so many countries killing so many people with such
brutality? And, no less important, why are Western leaders so insistent
on telling us after each attack that Muslim terrorists are distorting
Islam? Each month, literally hundreds of people, if not more, are being
killed by Muslims in the name of Islam in a multiplicity of conflicts
around the world. From the streets of Baghdad to the markets of
Mogadishu, and from Benghazi to Bangladesh, the frequency and ferocity
of such attacks is staggering.
(Pauvres petits juifs qui frappent un
mur de rectitude politique quand ils tentent de répandre la haine sur
l'Islam... C'est triste, bou-houhou.)

A story of France's quiet surrender to Islamic rule
'Soumission' was published on January 7, the same day 10 workers at
Charlie Hebdo were murdered by Al-Qaida-inspired terrorists. Is the
fundamentalist future portrayed by author Michel Houellebecq already
here?
Les juifs mettent en garde contre la haine mais ils adorent le nouveau livre de Houellebecq!

Victor Vancier (1986): "If
you think the Shias in Lebanon are capable of fantastic acts of
suicidal terrorism, the Jewish underground will strike targets that will
make Americans gasp: 'How could Jews do such things?' "

On this, the 13th anniversary of the Israeli-engineered terrorist attacks on the US, initiating the present ‘Clash of Civilizations’ between an Islamic world that refuses to be part of the NWO vs the ‘Judeo/Christian’ world that seeks to bring into the world institutionalized evil, we discuss the gains and losses that have accrued since the beginning of this struggle.
We are joined by the one and only Michael Collins Piper Listen Here